84 



SPORES AND SPORIDIA. 



It has been contended that the terms employed by cryptogamists 

 for the spores of plants coming within their cognizance are by no 

 means settled or universal, and, moreover, that certain terms are 

 objectionable. Accepting 'the general term " spore" in all its 

 vagueness as applicable alike to Fungi, Lichens, Alg«, and Mosses, 

 it must be admitted that something more definite is required to 

 distinguish one kind of spore from another. Tliis was felt long 

 ■ago, when it was proposed that the term " sporidia " should be 

 applied to such spores as are generated in asci. The " thecaspores" 

 of most authors convey the same meaning. Naked spores, as dis- 

 tinguished from sporidia generated in asci, retaining the name of 

 spore. This arrangement api^eared feasible, and was to some extent 

 adopted. In lichens, for instance, the spores contained in the 

 thec£e or asci, would thus come to be recognized as sporidia. In 

 fungi the fiuit of all the Ascoinycetes is of this character. It does 

 not militate against the manifest advantage of fixing such a limit 

 to the terms sporidia and spore, that lichenologists, as a rule, do 

 not accept them. It is doubtful whether any effort to assimilate 

 the terms employed by lichenologists and mycologists would be 

 successful or advisable. Spore and sporidia are by no means the 

 only instances. 



To argue, as some have done, that sporidia are the normal 

 conditions of spore generation, and that the capsule in mosses 

 is analogous to the ascus in fungi, is simply begging the 

 question. Let bryologists and algalogists l(?ok to their own terms. 

 The structural difierences do not warrant any demand that the con- 

 tents of a moss- capsule should be designated as sporidia. Be- 

 tween lichens and fungi there is this agreement, that such apo- 

 thecia as those of Lecanora, &c., are very similar to the cups of 

 Peziza, and so also are the asci, paraphyses, and sporidia. It must 

 be conceded that the lichenologists have not the same good reason 

 as mycologists for insisting on the use of a term which shall dis- 

 tinguish thecaspores, or spores contained in asci from naked spores. 

 Anyone who has had experience to any extent in fungi will at 

 once recognize the practical advantage of the two terms as applied, 

 for example, to the fruit of a SpJiceria on the one hand, and a 

 Corynewn on the other. Berkeley has classed fungi under two 

 groups, Sporifera and Sporidiifera, the former characterized by 

 naked spores, the latter by spores contained in asci (sporidia). 

 Long since Dr. Bail suggested Basidiosporce and Thecasporce for 

 similar divisions, but there is this objection to hasidiosporcs, that 

 il is calculated to mislead, since all naked spores are not borne on 

 basidia. Accurately, Basidiospores must be confined to the spores 

 of the Hymenomycetes and Gasteromycetes; it would not be appli- 

 cable to Ustilagines, and hardly to the Hyphomycetes. No such 

 objection can be taken to the limitation of spore and sporidia, as 



